Rickard Green

The PR #6216 should fix this issue (not very well tested yet, though). Unless something unexpected happens it will be part of the next patch.

Fixed in patches [OTP 25.0.4](https://www.erlang.org/patches/otp-25.0.4) and [OTP 24.3.4.3](https://www.erlang.org/patches/otp-24.3.4.3) which we released today.

After a quick look, it looks nice. Since we are in the middle of the vacation period now it will, however, take a while before we'll look further into it.

@juhlig wrote > In the case of interval timers, in the current implementation this would also cause them to increasingly lag behind (or miss events, from another perspective) if their...

@juhlig great! I was on vacation last week. I'll put it back into our daily testing (it gets automatically removed when someone pushes to a PR) and let it live...

> @rickard-green we were much faster than I had expected, and now have opened a competing PR #6256. What do you think? I've taken this PR out of the daily...

The incompatible protocol change is a major hurdle. An OTP node of release X needs to be able to talk to OTP nodes from release X-2 to release X+2. That...

Regarding `dbg`, you want to read the section [Note of Caution](https://www.erlang.org/doc/man/dbg.html#note-of-caution) in the `dbg` documentation.

I'm a bit ambivalent regarding this, but currently I quite heavily lean towards this being an issue that the NIF should solve. Deallocation of memory in an atexit handler seems...

> @rickard-green What are your thoughts on these potential solutions? > > 1. Having a `stop` or `halt` callback for NIFs that would be analogous to Port Driver's `stop` function...